Wish I was there!
In this post, and later this one, I directly stated that the Left, “the resistance,” progressives, Democrats, had increasingly embraced objectively wrongful conduct and unethical means and objectives as routine, and that the Kavanaugh confirmation fiasco proved it. The commenter here who goes by the handle of “Chrissy Boy” accused me of being openly partisan, which is demonstrably false: I would write exactly the same thing about the Republican Party if it were trying to eliminate due process, the presumption of innocence, fairness, decency, respect for elections, respect for dissent, a competent and objective press, and the integrity of national institutions. But you see, the current strategy of the Left is to make it crushingly clear that you are either with them, or “the other.” They certainly don’t like being “othered” themselves, but when you set out to topple an elected government and a Constitution, that’s what you deserve. In one of its Sunday Reviews—they all run together, since it it is really “The Resistance This Week” under a deceptively neutral name—the New York Times led with an essay in which the writer wrote that the term “resistance” was unfair and untrue, since they were trying to “create a new nation” and the Trump administration was resisting the inevitable. That new nation, the last few weeks proved, would reject the values I just listed.
This is why, though I have a backlog of ethics issues on a variety of topics, as well as some excellent Comments of the Day that require posting, I have to use the limited time I have right now to chronicle the carnage of the Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Ethics Train Wreck, which, it appears though I am afraid to hope, includes dramatically reduced public support for the “resistance,” the news media, and the Democratic Party. President Trump’s approval ratings (whatever they mean) are way up. Approval of the Democratic Party is crashing, and with it the likelihood of a “blue wave” that might allow the Democrats to execute that coup they’ve been attempting. I have been counting on the historical, cultural reality that in the United States of America, we don’t like Bad Guys, and don’t want to support them. I am still hoping that this prompts the Left to have its Michael Douglas epiphany, and start being the Good Guys again. So far, however, the signs are not good.
When the Supreme Court gives lefties outcomes lefties like, they want conservatives to stand down and accept that the Court is doing proper, even brilliant, legal work.
Yes, this is a quality of Bad Guys: they have no integrity. Remember that same sex marriage decision that the evil old reloigious right claimed was “illegitimate” because it opposed “God’s law”?
1. It’s Hate Senator Collins Day! I’m not a Susan Collins fan, as I have always found her annoyingly wishy-washy, equivocal, pandering and a poor role model for women in power whose manner and speaking style illustrates why it is that more women aren’t in positions of power. However, she gave a ringing speech yesterday explaining why she would be voting for Kavanaugh’s confirmation, verbally nailing the coffin shut that contained the Democratic schemes to defeat him. My Facebook ffed is filled with people writing that she is a coward, a traitor (to her gender! to #MeToo!), an idiot. Althouse also flagged this comment (with over 1000 “likes”) to the Times piece, “Collins and Manchin Will Vote for Kavanaugh, Ensuring His Confirmation”:
Thank you Heidi Heitkamp, and thank you Lisa Murkowski for standing up for women and against sexual predators. And how about you Susan Collins? Do you want to be the only woman in the Senate to put a man creditably accused of sexual assault against multiple women who has clearly demonstrated his intent in the very recent Jane Doe case to eviscerate, if not overturn, Roe v. Wade? It’s time to stand with your sisters and vote “No!” to white male power and privilege to avoid responsibility for sexual misconduct by blaming and mocking the women.
I bet a lot of the angry posters on my Facebook feed agree with this fool. (By the way, that courageous Lisa Murkowski now says she will vote “present”). How, exactly, does voting down Kavanaugh stand up for women? Oh, right, that hypothetical future case threatening Roe that hasn’t been filed or argued yet but that everyone knows how Brett will decide on its yet-to-be-known facts and legal questions, since all females, including those who will be legally snuffed out of existence in the womb, support abortion on demand. Sorry. I forgot. How does voting against a man who has not been “credibly” shown to be a sexual predator any more than I have constitute “standing against sexual predators?” What, the Senate is now operated by gender-team voting? Wasn’t this the argument of Madeleine Allbright for voting for Hillary? Women haven’t yet figured out what is offensive, wrong, bigoted and stupid about this logic? It’s capitulating to “white male power and privilege” to reject the destruction of a distinguished public servant based on hearsay, rumor, and unsubstantiated testimony?
What has the last two years done to once functioning brains and consciences to make such garbage a popular and respected position?
I have been dropping this in multiple Facebook feeds in response to the anti-Collins hate:
“I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events. We will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence.”—Senator Collins. The MONSTER!!!!
2. Is it fair that a ridiculous accusation causes people to doubt a more reasonable one? At Reason, Robby Souve makes the argument that publicity whore lawyer Michael Avenatti helped get Kavanaugh confirmed by adding his client’s accusation to the assault on the judge’s character:
The spotlight-stealing lawyer, who also represented Stormy Daniels, is responsible for drawing the media’s attention to Julie Swetnick, an alleged victim of Kavanaugh who told an inconsistent and unpersuasive story. Swetnick’s wild accusation provided cover for fence-sitting senators to overlook the more plausible allegation leveled by psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, and to declare that Kavanaugh was being subjected to false smears…Avenatti—and to a lesser extent, Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow, who ran with a story so thin The New York Times wouldn’t print it—took the narrow question of whether Kavanaugh or Ford were more believable, and raised the stakes by asserting he was a serial sexual abuser, rather than an inconsiderate, sexually aggressive teenage drunk. It was always going to be easier to poke holes in the grander narrative. This very well may have been a gift to those who were looking for cover to vote for Kavanaugh.
It’s unfortunate for the anti-Trump resistance, and for Ford, that Avenatti couldn’t help but make the story about him.
Logically and ethically, the incredible and dubious story told by B cannot and should not undermine the credibility of an accusation by A….unless it reasonably suggests a relationship between the stories, and a coordinated smear campaign. On one hand, in sexual assault he said/she said scenario, the existence of other, subsequent credible accusers enhances the credibility of the first one. (See: Cosby, Bill). If, however, those subsequent accusers’ stories seem contrived and unlikely, as all of the post-Ford accusations were, they create a context for the original one that undermines credibility.
I’m not sure that’s wrong.